black321 wrote:
All true, but there is also a generational conflict that keeps rewarding the haves (Silent, Baby Boomers, Gen X) and penalizing the have nots (Milennials, Gen Z).  We've stripped the value out of work and placed it into information and investments, making the accumulation of assets and rewards difficult.   Shifts such as work from home will help, but home ownership will require relocations and a loss of other quality of life benefits found in cities.  We've also made the cost of accessing Information Age opportunity unreasonably expensive (ie college).  Graduates now already have a mortgage... taking on another one is nearly impossible.

Things have not been great for the bottom half the past few years, but they could have been, and can still be, a lot worse.  Anyone in the lower half that hears the word "tariff" should immediately vote for Harris.  It's not a "sales tax" as she keeps saying, but it's similar enough that there isn't really a better description.  A 20% tariff on even a quarter of US consumption would hammer that group, who would pick up an unreasonably high percentage of the "new tax revenue".

The biggest threat to the economy is instability.  Trump inherited the "greatest economy ever" and then ran into COVID.  His projected policies represent another COVID-like shock to the system that is again targeted at the poor... yet many of them don't understand it, and instead want things to go back to 2018.  That ship has sailed. 

 islander wrote:

I'm making no judgements, except perhaps people spend too much...and often beyond their means.
And yes, all boats were lifted, but the top half have outpaced the bottom half. 
We have a bifurcated economy where the top half are seeing good gains in their wealth, while the bottom half have been in a recession the past two years, struggling to pay bills, despite their own more meager gains. Yet, the quality of life is much greater for all. 

 buddy wrote:

Well, one of them, anyway.   

 Beaker wrote:
I’m all good if we can keep all the Canadians at bay.

😉

 black321 wrote:

Yes, and not entirely sure I'm following your argument. Are you saying that because we are spending more the poor should be happy with what they have and not bitch about rent because they have an iphone?

Productivity has grown by leaps and bounds. This has enabled all of our new found consuming.  The rich got massively richer, while those doing most of the producting have been mired in a pretty marginal soup of some gains and a lot more costs (profits from which go to the ultra wealthy). The ultra wealthy continue to outpace all of us, enabled by our society. Yet they put little back in, in some cases even causing harm (see rent fixing software).  The tide is indeed lifting all boats, but some are throwing a wake and swamping the smaller guys, who then sink.

 islander wrote:
free markets is a loose term that doesnt actually exist, excepts in shades.
If you look at Fed/FRED data, tracking incomes and wealth since the late 80s...all income brackets saw real gains, albeit the rich got richer.
We as consumers spend a lot more than we did 30-40 years ago, excluding shelter. 

 Beaker wrote:

Not at all. We do need a comprehensive and cohesive immigration policy. One party is against that because they need a talking point. Cheers to you for continuing to prop up the wrong end of that argument.  

There are a lot of valid reasons and ways to control immigration.  Your 'fears' (yeah, really others fears, you are just echoing talking points from the party), are all about the wrong reasons, both for justification and fixes.

 black321 wrote:

Ironically, Housing isn't really a free market. Many policies in place that have prevented proper balance. Also wages on the low end have not really kept up, so even if housing moved at a normal inflationary pace it would be challenging.

Housing is one of those difficult items. It's a commodity and an investment vehicle for many, even a business in certain segments. But it also a necessary item for a decent existence.  Also necessary to have some controls on building to provide for societal norms, safety and other things that drive costs. 

 islander wrote:

So, we can also mark you down in the camp of no negative consequences?  At all?

Wilful blindness must be strange.

 rgio wrote:
Sooo... you have no actual opinion on the massive influx of illegal border-crossing immigrants flooding your country, overwhelming small towns, and exploding the demand on infrastructure everywhere they arrive in numbers. Mkay.

 Beaker wrote:

Lots of low cost workers for the capitalist class to exploit for their gains. Has the dual effect of keeping wages low and providing a talking point to keep those displaced chasing the wrong demons.

How do you like them apples (picked/packaged and processed by low cost workers)?

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Well now you are getting philosophical...discussion beyond the current election towards the role that gov should play over private enterprise?
Selfishness...greed is good? a good economy does tend to lift all boats, albeit often quite skewed towards those who control the capital vs labor. 
Which entity is better at providing and creating a fair system?
(not that anyone asked or cares) I do believe in equal access to education, all the way up to jr college (which would alleviate some of the financial burden of attending university) and healthcare. The former we mostly have, but the latter...we seem to be just too entangled in our current system to unwind...but gov could take over the insurance bit. 
Housing is a tricky one...we have some safety nets like section 8, rent control, yet the govs role has been spotty at best. I think a lot the local gov proposals to address housing costs will do more harm than good.

 Beaker wrote:
Trump built a wall that Mexico paid for, so we didn't need the immigration bill he torpedoed to stop the wide-open border.   

But hey...vote for the guy who promises to send millions to places that won't accept them after spending billions to find them.  No need to worry...he has an outline for a plan.

 rgio wrote:

Now tell us your take on the unintended consequences that the wide-open border that Biden-Harris created has had.  Google if you must.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Also, using profit as your success metric for healthcare leads to the wrong behavior incentives and poor outcomes for the customer.  Similar for education. We need another class of 'business' that is aligned for public good.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Totally agree.  The lack of understanding includes an inability to consider unintended consequences.  Destroying the government by eliminating capability is counter-productive. Government should be smaller and more efficient, but if you throw out those who understand why and how things were done, things only get worse.  Education, healthcare, and housing, etc.... all fall into that trap if we're not careful.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

 rgio wrote:
Selfishness is a good way to vote, but it's difficult for a lot of people to understand how things do work in their favor, so they wind up voting for whatever hurts other people, thinking that will help them rise. The money-lenders like to say "a rising tide lifts all boats" as a way of saying that a robust stock market is good for everyone in somewhat equal measure. That may or may not be, but they refuse to acknowledge the same phenomenon when it comes to education, healthcare, housing access, etc. etc. 

 islander wrote:
No doubt reason isn't part of the discussion here, but the statement was about personal experience (not everyone), but I've yet to have a Trump voter explain to me why they support him without expressing one of those three.

Stupid speaks for itself.  I don't frequently interact with folks I'd define as stupid, but there have been a few.

Racist hides better, but comes out with enough conversation.  It's a slippery slope to mix racism and say immigration, so why get stuck.  The real issue is selfishness.

The easy mark is the selfish who like low taxes.  I know a lot of people who make $500k+, and the ones supporting Trump are doing so only to keep more money.  There are actually fewer of those now than in 2016/2020...but it's still a sizable group.

But the selfish come in all shapes and sizes.  I'd argue that before I had kids, my voting perspective was also selfish.  Low taxes, small government, I keep what I earn and get rewarded for hard work.  But that's not enough.  A healthy, functioning society needs to support as many as possible, while maintaining rewards for risk taking and hard work.  The problem with Americans this century is that there is a perverse fascination with expressing wealth and not sharing it.  

I could type for hours but have shit to do... but selfishness is the overriding emotion that plays to the MAGA crowd.  Empathy is dead.  Having Philadelphia out my window delivers a non-stop stream of adds until Tuesday.  The Right's focus in on immigrants getting benefits you don't, Trans criminals getting surgery you can't, and boys who want to win so bad they transition to girls in order to be state champions.  It's all emotional bullshit, with only the slightest hint of reality.   

If you're stupid, you believe it.  
If you're racist, it supports what you've been thinking for years.
If you're selfish, it helps to explain why you're stuck where you are, and why the government should go away and leave me with what little I have left.

Scratch below the surface... and one of those three will appear.

I think this fact check sums up the differences in rhetoric from the two candidates.

Fact Check: Did Kamala Harris Call Donald Trump 'Hitler'?

Donald Trump has accused Kamala Harris of calling him Adolf Hitler, suggesting that the Vice President is "not fit to be President of the United States" because of her choice of rhetoric.

It comes after Trump's former chief of staff, John Kelly, claimed in the Atlantic that the former president had said he needed "the kind of generals that Adolf Hitler had".

Vice President Harris responded to Kelly's allegations in a speech at her residence in Washington D.C., and during CNN's Town Hall in Pennsylvania on Wednesday.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...